Some states have laws that criminalize the display of obscene bumper stickers. For example: As with most legal issues, it depends on the details whether your state government considers an offensive bumper sticker to be illegal. In general, as long as the bumper sticker isn`t obscene, pornographic, or blocking your view, it`s likely covered by First Amendment free speech protection. The good news is that Mr. Webb took one for the team. Now, Florida officials are alerted that an “I Eat Ass” bumper sticker is not obscene. To provide a service to my Florida blog readers, here`s a link to etsy`s page for “I Eat Ass” materials: www.etsy.com/market/i_eat_ass_sticker bumper stickers remain an easy way for citizens to express themselves on a variety of topics – political candidates, environmental concerns, religion, sports teams, almost every topic imaginable. They also pose fascinating problems of expression when the government decides to sue the issuer of an offensive bumper sticker. After the case was heard by a judge, the prosecutor dismissed all charges on the grounds that Mr. Webb would have a full defense against the indictment under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Howard said that if the bumper referred to a sexual act, it would only be First Amendment protected speech if it had serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Reasonable officials might think the bumper sticker was obscene, making it a perpetual offense, she concluded. Tennessee`s attorney general issued a statement in 1988 that the bill at the time was constitutional as long as it only applied to bumper stickers that met the legal definition of obscenity.
The notice concludes: “The display of a bumper sticker with the words `s. t happens` does not appear to imply any of the circumstances that allow for the restriction or regulation of state speech. Therefore, such objects cannot be prohibited under constitutional law. See Tenn. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 88-44. The state attorney general affirmed this in 2004, noting that the provision is constitutionally sound as long as the prohibited material meets the obscenity test. See Tenn. Op.
Atty. Gen. No. 04-086. The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in its 1995 decision Ethredge v. Welcome that officials at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia could ban “bumper stickers or other similar utensils” that could “embarrass or denigrate” the commander-in-chief. Jesse Ethredge, a civilian aircraft mechanic, challenged the order after being ordered to remove his anti-Reagan and anti-Bush stickers that read “HELL WITH REAGAN” and “READ MY LIPS HELL WITH GEO BUSH.” The court showed great respect for the military officials` evidence that the sticker “would undermine military order, discipline and responsiveness.” However, not all public servants were successful when they were disciplined for bumper stickers. In Connealy v. in 1976, Walsh, a federal judge in Missouri, dismissed the First Amendment complaint of a First Amendment social worker who was sanctioned for refusing to remove a political bumper sticker from her personal vehicle. The worker stuck a “McGovern” bumper sticker on her car to express her support for 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern.
The President of the Juvenile Division of the Court distributed a note stating: “No employee may be involved in any political activity of any kind. This also includes bumper stickers. Participation will result in immediate termination. Baker is a truck driver from Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Aware that motorists were encouraged to report truckers` indiscretions with bumper stickers that read, for example, “How am I? Call 1-800-2-ADVISE” and to protest this development, Baker bought a bumper sticker at a novelty store in Panama City, Florida, that said, “How am I? Call 1-800-EAT SHIT! and place it in the back of its pickup. In Ethredge v. Hail (1995), the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an Air Force administrative order banning bumper stickers that “embarrass or denigrate” the president. Jesse Ethredge, a civil aircraft mechanic at an air base, unsuccessfully challenged the policy in federal court. The Eleventh District gave great reverence to the military authorities, arguing that the ordinance promoted the military`s interests in maintaining good order and discipline. It is also important to make other related observations.
First, for citizens without wealth or power, a bumper sticker may be one of the few ways available to convey a message to an audience. See Members of city council v. taxpayer for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 812 n. 30, 104 p. Ct. 2118, 2133 n. 30, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984) (“the Court has shown particular attention to expressions which are much cheaper than viable alternatives and may therefore be important for a large part of citizens”). Moreover, in this case, Baker could only really communicate his message, which satirized other bumper stickers, through a bumper sticker and with the exact language chosen. For his message to have its sharp shot, the medium of the parody and its object had to be not only the same, but also the number of characters in the parody and their object had to be the same.
Moreover, the offensive language, as with Cohen`s jacket, was itself essential to the message of the sticker. “A lot of linguistic expression. conveys not only ideas capable of a relatively precise and distanced explanation, but also otherwise unspeakable emotions. In fact, words are often chosen for their emotional and cognitive power. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 26, 91 p. Ct. to 1788. In short, the words “Eat Shit” skillfully fulfilled a dual role here: they not only represented the seven-digit number in *1516 of the parodied bumper sticker, but they also humorously conveyed Baker`s strong feelings for such numbers. As for the trickiest part of the case — whether the sticker actually violated the law and/or whether Webb`s First Amendment rights were violated or not — the court decides it doesn`t need to think much about that issue either.
When it comes to bumper stickers, the legal landscape is littered with court rulings that confirm First Amendment rights for Americans to say what they have in mind. The speech could have been protected, even given its “sexual nature,” if it contained “serious artistic, literary, political or scientific value.” The judge says that this sticker does not, or, if it does, it was not immediately obvious to MP English and his direct superior. The officer asked to appear and ordered Webb to remove a letter from the bumper sticker so that it would no longer be obscene. Webb refused. The 10th Circuit, in its decision Wise v. Casper, concluded that the couple`s Rights under the First Amendment had not been violated. The court noted that the couple were only participants in the event and that the speech in question (the bumper sticker) took place outside the event. Because they were excluded based on statements outside of the event, the court noted that they had “not identified any First Amendment doctrine prohibiting the government from excluding them from making an official discourse on private property based on their views.” The court also held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. A federal judge from Missouri came in 1995 in Goodman v. City of Kansas City.
A municipal ordinance restricted the political right of employees to express themselves. The by-law included one that stated: “No vehicle equipped with a bumper sticker leading to the election or defeat of a candidate or political party may be parked in a parking lot controlled by the city. Florida law prohibits “any sticker, sticker emblem, or other device attached to a motor vehicle that contains obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions.” The 11th District argued that the order was neutral because it would apply to bumper stickers that support or disapprove of the commander-in-chief. “In fact, we can imagine signs or messages that, while intended to support the president, (for example, due to a profane nature) can embarrass or denigrate the president,” the court said. Military officials also banned bumper stickers displaying the Confederate flag. However, other courts have sided with public sector employees who have challenged restrictions on bumper stickers. The judge wrote: “While Baker is certainly not a likely contender for a literary award, he has serious literary value as a parody of stickers like `How`s My Driving? Call 1-800-2-ADVISE. Baker`s sticker also has political value as a protest against the “Big Brother” mentality promoted by other bumper stickers that ask the public to report truck drivers` indiscretions. A reporter asked Third Circuit Attorney John Durrett if he was aware of the case and whether Attorney General Jeff Siegmeister intended to pursue the case.
There is nothing illegal about having a “thin blue line” sticker on your car. However, it`s also important to avoid stickers that could indicate you`re a police officer, as it`s illegal to impersonate a law enforcement agency. In addition, you must ensure that your condition allows you to report a Fraternal Order sticker to the police. This may be illegal in Florida, for example. Smith said he wasn`t sure the case would go through the court system, but that wasn`t the sheriff`s office`s job.
